sorry for being so lame, I'm too lazy to actually think on this one. But here is my 1 'proof' that I want to throw out about God:

In the universe and on Earth, we see order and life. We know there are two posibilities: there is no God, and everything came about through complete undivine randomness (okay, nothing's random, unless your talking about QM); the second one: because we see order and life in the universe and on Earth, it makes more sense to say "in the begining was intelligence", then "in the begining was no intelligence."

Okay, simplistic argument. but consider that believers life by faith, not evidence. I could give real evidence, but it won't resemble science, nor can be tested, so it can't count in this debate.

kclo4x wrote:Alright, well being a strong atheist i have gotten myself into a discussion with a creationist! i do it for fun... i really don't know why

anyways, ive made a game out of it and said

Tell me the 5 best proofs of god, and i will tell you the 5 best proofs of evolution.

Then you show me, how my 5 best proofs of evolution are wrong or try to show how they are wrong if you believe they are, and i will do the same with your 5 best proofs of god. Alright?

So, i know that i could already make some really good points, but i just want to hear the best from the best because i haven't even taken biology yet.

so if you guys would be kind enough to tell me what you think the 5 best proofs of evolution are, i would be quite happy

I think you've made the mistake of assuming they are mutually exclusive concepts. Creation as detailed in the book of Genesis, if taken literally, is mutually exclusive with evolution, God is not. Not all ideas about God involve such a creation myth. Take Deism, for example. Deist believe that there is a God, who was responsible for creating the universe, but who did not interact with it after that. In such a belief system, Evolution could just be a mechanism built into the universe to allow life to arise without divine intervention.

The existence of a Deity does not refute evolution, and the truth of evolution does not refute the existence of a Deity, it only implies a lazy one.

The existence of God can never be disproven scientifically imho, therefore it's a moot scientific point.

Evolution is a word that encompasses a HUGE array of theory, much of which is backed up by sound empirical data, so for someone to "disprove evolution" they wouldn't be able to do so by addressing one point or another.

When you challenge someone to disprove evolution, you are being unfair (almost as unfair as someone challenging you to disprove God).

Be more specific in your challenge. Perhaps ask them to attempt to disprove current theory on the evolutionary lineage of cetaceans. In this way you can both learn, and perhaps contribute to the scientific community.

The "discussion" you describe serves no purpose but to turn you both blue in the face. In the end neither of you will have accomplished anything except perhaps strenthening your own beliefs.

One last thought: Do you accept evolutionary theory as a valid model, given the scientific research supporting it? Or do you believe in evolution? For some, evolution can be just as much a matter of faith as God is for Christians (or other faiths).

What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"

I think there's a lot more evidence for God's existence than most scientists are willing to admit. To me, denying the existence of God is exactly the same as denying the existence of my co-worker, whom I see and talk to every day. What I don't understand is why evolution has to be misconstrued as some sort of attack on theism. Darwin - if his opinions mean anything - mentioned "the Creator" very often in Origin of Species.

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

Be more specific in your challenge. Perhaps ask them to attempt to disprove current theory on the evolutionary lineage of cetaceans. In this way you can both learn, and perhaps contribute to the scientific community.[/quote

]

Those are good points Astusaleator

I especially would like to see evidence provided about the lineage of humans

I believe that the bible is the inspired word of God. So that being the case, the bible should give testement about life and the creation of it.
It repeatedly refers to the creation of living things according to their kinds.

God did not have to create all the variety we see today only the kind or type.
For example,There may have been one kind of Cat -type animal in the begining which then gradualy came the variety we see today.

Humans however, are described as a distinct kind.
It has been my firm belief that evidence would be found to back this up and disprove some of the theories that man evolved from Ape/like
As time goes on their will be more evidence of this.
So it did not come as a surprise to me when I read about
New research which discredits the long standing theory that Homo habilis evolved in to Homo erectus. They were seperate and distinct species living at the same time.

If evidence continues to validate the bibles descriptions then IMO it gives proof that God exists.

"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

I wonder what exactly you consider to be a "kind." To me, it sounds like an all-too-easy fall-back argument. There was a time when anti-evolutionists used very similar arguments to deny any sort of speciation; now that overwhelming evidence of speciation has been found, they have altered their argument to deny the development of new genera and families. Perhaps once further evidence is discovered, they will change the definition of "kind" to mean orders, classes, and phyla. My point is that it's all to easy, once it has been established that one organism evolved into another, to say "Well they're both the same 'kind,' so that still doesn't prove anything." That's why the "kind" argument really doesn't seem valid to me.

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

1) I believe the Bible is true and that Jesus Christ died on the cross for all of mankind. If Jesus Christ died on the cross, then this validates Adam's original sin. If, however, man evolved from worms, then there was never an original "Adam"...thus no original sin that condemned mankind.....this, in turn, invalidates any reason for Jesus to die on the cross.

2) There is no valid materialistic origin of life...science seems to be shying away from this nowdays, seemingly accepting that life has an unknown cause.

3) There is no valid explanation for the origin of the genetic code, which is insanely huge and complex, yet compressed into an incredibly small package.

4) The dinosaurs, which are said to have lived 100 million years ago have been unearthed with soft tissue/proteins embedded in their bones, which indicates that they could not possibly be millions of years old. Also, ancient art and sculptures have depicted dinosaurs on cave walls and on art.

5) There is not even one substantiated scientific validation of the mechanism of Random mutations culled by natural selection. Not one. Never has science even dared to prove this concept in a laboratory test or in the field with real animals....and this is because the mechanism is a fairytale. Physiological change, which is misconstrued as "evolution" is actually a just a developmental phenomenon in individuals. Evolutionists have long said that phenotypic change results from mutations, but in reality it's not mutations that modify phenotype, it's a re-expressions of regulatory genes that happens during development. This is a purposeful, intelligent process that has nothing to do with changes in genes or adding new genes. You can read more about that here:

7) The mind manipulates matter, not the other way around. It's a fact that sensations, awareness and other mental processes can purposefully alter/modify morphology, even lead to evolutionary, heritable change. If materialism were true, matter would have to manipulate mental processes.

There are no ape fossils that transition into human fossils.

9) Science has never found any common ancestor....not between man and apes -- not between any other animals either. Common ancestors are a figment of peoples' imagination and have no place in science.

supersport wrote:1) I believe the Bible is true and that Jesus Christ died on the cross for all of mankind. If Jesus Christ died on the cross, then this validates Adam's original sin. If, however, man evolved from worms, then there was never an original "Adam"...thus no original sin that condemned mankind.....this, in turn, invalidates any reason for Jesus to die on the cross.

I believe the Bible as well, but Genesis seems to be remarkably compatible with evolution, doesn't it? And perhaps God caused Adam to evolve from an ape-like ancestor, and then Adam committed his original sin, and then from him came all of humanity? Scientists have found genetic evidence of Eve's existence, so why not Adam as well?

supersport wrote:2) There is no valid materialistic origin of life...science seems to be shying away from this nowdays, seemingly accepting that life has an unknown cause.

This has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Evolution only explains how life developed after it originated, not how it originated in the first place.

supersport wrote:3) There is no valid explanation for the origin of the genetic code, which is insanely huge and complex, yet compressed into an incredibly small package.

I'm not so sure on that one. Various biocompounds such as amino acids and nucleotide bases have been found to occur naturally in various parts of the universe. It's quite possible those naturally-occurring biochemicals could've come together to form the first cell.

supersport wrote:4) The dinosaurs, which are said to have lived 100 million years ago have been unearthed with soft tissue/proteins embedded in their bones, which indicates that they could not possibly be millions of years old. Also, ancient art and sculptures have depicted dinosaurs on cave walls and on art.

This is such a blatant fallacy I wonder if I should even bother to answer it. Soft tissues can be fossilized under the right conditions. As for dinosaurs appearing in ancient art, that is completely untrue. Please cite sources if you think otherwise.

supersport wrote:5) There is not even one substantiated scientific validation of the mechanism of Random mutations culled by natural selection. Not one. Never has science even dared to prove this concept in a laboratory test or in the field with real animals....and this is because the mechanism is a fairytale. Physiological change, which is misconstrued as "evolution" is actually a just a developmental phenomenon in individuals. Evolutionists have long said that phenotypic change results from mutations, but in reality it's not mutations that modify phenotype, it's a re-expressions of regulatory genes that happens during development. This is a purposeful, intelligent process that has nothing to do with changes in genes or adding new genes. You can read more about that here:

I suggest you read Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea by Carl Zimmer and Finding Darwin's God by Dr. Kenneth Miller. Both have plenty of descriptions of evidence validating exactly what you claim has never been validated.

supersport wrote:6) There is no materialist origin for anything.

And this disproves evolution how?

supersport wrote:7) The mind manipulates matter, not the other way around. It's a fact that sensations, awareness and other mental processes can purposefully alter/modify morphology, even lead to evolutionary, heritable change. If materialism were true, matter would have to manipulate mental processes.

Yet evolution and materialism are two completely different theories.

supersport wrote:8) There are no ape fossils that transition into human fossils.

Completely untrue. Read either of the above-mentioned books or, better yet, Stephen Jay Gould's The Book of Life for some useful information on human ancestors.

supersport wrote:9) Science has never found any common ancestor....not between man and apes -- not between any other animals either. Common ancestors are a figment of peoples' imagination and have no place in science.

Again, this is just plain not true. Read any of the above-mentioned books as good sources.

supersport wrote:10.) There is no scientific explanation for consciousness.

What does this have to do with evolution?

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

March 24, 2005A Tyrannosaurus rex fossil has yielded what appear to be the only preserved soft tissues ever recovered from a dinosaur. Taken from a 70-million-year-old thighbone, the structures look like the blood vessels, cells, and proteins involved in bone formation.

So tell me, do you really think soft tissue could last for 70 million years without fossilizing or disintegrating? I don't